And what relevance does that have? It’s currently seen as legitimate. You’re saying our revenues are so high they don’t need inflating when they’re the 3rd highest in the EPL. Under whoever our next owners are - boosting revenues (legitimately) needs to be a primary objective. They’ve stagnated.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
A circus
Probably better than Liam Gallagher's fake Manchester accent though. I've never heard anyone from Burnage talk like that.
I don’t want a Nice vibe. No to glazer 2.0. End Of.
In which way and are they different to any big club?
The other ones had to. City haven't had a decent following in decades before they were bought. Outside stockport, you wouldn't have found a dozen people who could name any players other than shaun goater.
They HAD to inflate income to match the expense required to become competitive. They chose to take a short cut and financially dope the club. They could have built it over time.
That is not relevant to us, in any way shape or form. We already have the financial power to do so.
Yeh at our detriment. Plus apparently they cannot continue sustaining this which is why they are selling. They’re not allowed to take further loans on the clubs name. 2 of the glazers wanted to keep the club.
We can do a lot better on our current revenue than we have done though. Of course it can and should be improve upon.
Absolutely no. I don't see how it could happen. Real change comes from within and is often reached via ugly means (revolution basically) when the power in place is authoritarian
London side of Manchester
Would the PL make Ineos sign something to stat that they won't take money out of united to fund their debt to buy the club. Without that it would just be a leveraged buyout in disguise which I now believe to have been outlawed?
I've lived in Levy/Burnage for years and not many put it on the extent he does but there are a few who sound like that.
Is it just me or is anyone else still incensed that we had to sell Ronaldo and replace him with Obertan and Michael Owen? Don't remember receiving any sympathy from other football fans when that was happening. Far as I'm concerned getting some actual wealthy owners in who can invest in the team is payback for that. With the Glazers we were always catching up to the rest and the money we spent was from a position of weakness after they'd leeched us for all we were worth.
They'll bid after the hard deadline.
Fair enough. So in your opinion what can fans of this club do?
Yeah fair enough I've been mislead on that one.
Too much player power, they have a shitty model of just buying big players and then hoping a manager can come in and work it out, they don't favour the manager or give them enough time.
It's basically everything against I find United were known for.
What is the desired outcome?
I just had a quick look and we paid 18.2m in interest in 2022, on around 500m debt at that time. So we're not paying 1%.
the only source I could find was this one which says it's 4.8%
https://www.gurufocus.com/term/EffectiveInterestRate/Man Utd/Effective-Interest-Rate-on-Debt-/Manchester-United-PLC#:~:text=2022 was $781.7 Mil.,2022 was 4.80%.
In answer to your question, Ineos can buy cheaper debt because their revenues are something like 100x Uniteds. I'm obviously not referring to historical fixed rate debt that was purchased back when interest rates were much lower. They'd be stupid to change that until it's neccessary. Whenever it is time to renegotiate the debt, they'll do so on their own (better) terms.
Well that’s partly true, whether it’s us or someone else. State ownership has been welcomed. If we turn them down, they’ll go and buy Arsenal and @GoonerInPeace will have to start supporting the “taliban”.
look I agree, but being critical of posters than are worried about it isn't fair is all I'm saying.
All they have to do is wave the money and people turn a blind eye. It just highlights how little people give a shit about others in a different country so long as they get some expensive new toys to moan about.
Ronaldo dreamed of playing for Real.
Fergie got a extra year out of him, before he was emancipated.
Yet thay are set to make billions and billions and sell to much much richer owners, they’ve been in 3 CL finals and even at the death they appear to finally have United and ETH on the right track with new richer owners to continue that.
So hard to claim you simply can’t run a club like that.
What is clear is that you can’t run a football club with Ed Woodward in charge.
Which raises an interesting question for me. Revenue is now king. Are legitimate non-Qatari companies more or less likely to sponsor us if we’re owned by controversial state-linked owners? Or is it the same? Does being owned by Qatar impact the brand?
We can't be hypocritical and turn a blind eye if they own us like city and Newcastle. We have to push for change no matter how unlikely
Voice their opinions, make protests or other actions for the Qatari people if they truly care about them. If not, just accept things for what they are and be fine with your choice. Our range of action is very limited
There is no model at PSG build around player power, they don't just buy big players in fact the vast majority of their signings aren't big players and weren't big players. They don't give less times to manager than any other big club in fact, their managers have mainly finished their contracts.
Explain this post to me.
That's not an outcome.
I know there's a few, but you tend to hear that sort of accent in and around Salford for me. He definitely plays on it.
I mean surely the 9 2 foundation is just a proposal in case the bid goes through right? If theyve set it up already it means they must be very confident.
PSG are doing very fine in terms of partnerships with other occidental brands. Qatar is rarely an issue when it comes to those multi millions deals. Man Utd being a bigger club would only increase its revenues
BR says it better than I could…
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...d-be-a-disaster-just-look-at-the-state-of-psg
Surprised that Neville and co are quiet on the matter, and when you think of the whole 92 foundation, I have a feeling that some of ex players are hoping to be involved in whatever is coming, or might be involved already.
We've no actual say in the outcome. But to then pretend everything is rosy is wrong as well
On the outside yes, but in reality no because all these companies are bed with them. Money talks always, it’s what the majority of businesses care about.
Did the leveraged buyout banning even get done? Done a quick search to see any wording and I can only find articles from last May saying they're looking into cracking down on them.
- Status